Some of our current and more recent cases include the following kinds of cases:

SEE A LIST OF CASES AND ISSUES WE ARE CURRENTLY INVESTIGATING
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (“FLSA”) WAGE AND OVERTIME CASES
ERISA PENSION AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS CASES
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES
DISABILITY AND HEALTH BENEFITS CASES

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (“FLSA”) WAGE AND OVERTIME CASES

Martin & Bonnett is currently litigating and investigating several industries for overtime and Fair Labor Standards Act violations including:

• Assistant Managers
• Bank Employees
• Call Center/Telemarketing Employees
• Customer Service Employees
• Drivers
• Engineers
• Hospital Workers
• Loan Officers/Loan Processors
• Restaurant Employees
• Retail Store Employees

If you would like more information, or believe you are entitled to overtime or compensation you have not been paid, contact our experienced FLSA overtime attorneys, at (602)240-6900 or call 1-800-952-4750.

Wildflower Bread Company (Rose)

Description:
Martin & Bonnett filed a Class Action Complaint against Wildflower Bread Company, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  The FLSA Class Action Complaint alleges Wildflower Bread Company unlawfully classified and continues to classify its employees employed as Assistant Managers as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, and has failed and refused to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and in violation of Arizona’s wage statutes.  The FLSA class action lawsuit seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and treble damages.  

Who may be in the class? 
All persons currently or formerly employed as an Assistant Manager by Wildflower Bread Company who worked in excess of forty (40) hours on or after June 23, 2006, during one or more workweeks without receiving overtime compensation.

How to join the FLSA class action and obtain more information:
Contact our experienced FLSA overtime attorneys, at (602)240-6900 for more information and to see if you are eligible to join this lawsuit.

Klement v. Sierra Vista Regional Health Center

An FLSA class action lawsuit was filed by Martin & Bonnett against the Sierra Vista Regional Health Center on behalf of employees and former employees, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Arizona’s wage law.  The FLSA Class Action Complaint alleged that Sierra Vista Regional Health Center employees were improperly being denied wages and compensation for meal times and rest periods during which they were required to be on call.  Martin & Bonnett was successful in obtaining a substantial settlement for the class.     

ERISA PENSION AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS CASES

Martin & Bonnett has litigated and is currently litigating numerous individual and class action cases regarding employees and retirees of state and local employers and large companies such as Honeywell, Motorola, Lockheed Martin, John Deere, collectively bargained plans,  and employers in the dairy industry, the financial service industry, defense contractor industry, medical industry, technology companies, security companies, and pharmaceutical companies.  Martin & Bonnett is committed to serving employees and retirees

Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust (Becker)

Description:
Martin & Bonnett filed a Class Action Complaint against Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust, on behalf of Wendell Becker and other active and retired Teamsters.  The Class Action Complaint alleges that the Teamsters Pension Plan unlawfully suspended benefits for post-retirement non-covered employment in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).

Status of Case

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement providing for over $7,000,000 in pension benefits for class members.  The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement and will hold a hearing on March 12, 2010 to determine whether to give final approval to the Class Action settlement.

If you are an active employee or retiree in the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund and had your benefits suspended for working in non-covered employment or were notified on or before October 31, 2009 that your benefits will be suspended for working in non-covered employment, you should have received a notice regarding the proposed class action settlement.  Contact one of our experienced ERISA pension attorneys at (602) 240-6900 for further information. 

If you are a member of the class, you may be eligible to have all or a portion of your benefits that were suspended for working in non-covered employment reimbursed with interest.

Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan

Description:
Martin & Bonnett filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against the Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan on behalf of former Garrett Retirement Plan Participants.  The Class Action Complaint alleged that ERISA and the terms of the Plans were violated and that participants’ vested, accrued and nonforfeitable retirement and pension benefits were unlawfully calculated and/or reduced in violation of ERISA and the terms of the Plans.  A Partial Settlement of the Class Action ERISA pension case was approved in February 2008.  The Partial Settlement provides for a recovery of $35 million with the potential to recover an additional $500 million if we are successful on the remaining issues in the case. You must have returned a Claim Form postmarked no later than January 28, 2008 in order to receive any of the $35 million Partial Settlement benefits.

The Partial Settlement resolved the claim that Defendants violated ERISA’s anti-cutback rule by eliminating the fractional reduction to the SBA offset for participants with more than 35 years of service.  However, 3 ERISA Claims were not resolved in the partial settlement:

1. The SBA Offset Claim, which is the claim that the Defendants reduced accrued benefits and violated ERISA’s “anti-cutback” rule by increasing the interest rate used to project a portion of Secured Benefit Account (“SBA”) balances to age 65 for purposes of calculating the SBA offset for participants who terminated their employment or retired before age 65,
2. The Social Security Offset Claim, which is the claim that the Defendants violated ERISA’s “anti-cutback” rule by applying a Social Security offset to benefits attributable to years of service worked prior to the adoption of the offset, and
3. The Minimum Benefits Claim, which includes the claims that Defendants violated the terms of the retirement plan by applying an SBA offset to the minimum benefit formulas, and that Defendants violated ERISA’s “anticutback” rule and notice requirements by amending the retirement plan to apply an SBA offset to the minimum benefit formulas.

Status of Case:
Status updates are posted periodically by our clients at www.GarrettAction.com

Lyell v. Farmers Group Inc. Employees’ Pension Plan
Martin & Bonnett filed a Class Action Complaint against Farmers Group Inc. Employee’s Pension Plan (“Farmers”) seeking retirement benefits for ERISA violations.  The case resulted in a Class Action Settlement.  Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, 96 individual Settlement Class Members will receive 100% of the amount of Additional Benefits or Additional Credited Service due plus interest on all past payments.

Loewy v. Retirement Committee, Plan Administrator of the Motorola, Inc. Pension Plan,
Martin & Bonnett settled a pension class action case against the Retirement Committee, Plan Administrator of the Motorola, Inc. Pension Plan for $11.3 million.  Class Representative Loewy, a Motorola retiree, noticed that Motorola was subtracting too much out of his pension benefits for a Social Security offset. 

After years of making phone calls and sending letters which proved to be unsuccessful, Mr. Loewy came to Martin & Bonnett for legal assistance.  A Class Action Complaint was filed by Martin & Bonnett.  In May 2005, Motorola Inc. agreed to settle the case for $11.3 million. 

For more information, please see the article in the Wall Street Journal about Mr. Loewy: Retiree Runaround:  Trying to Challenge A Benefits Decision.

Dominguez v. Retirement Benefit Plan for Salaried Employees of Asarco Inc. and Asarco Pension Board

A Class Action Complaint was filed against Asarco Inc. by Martin & Bonnett, on behalf of a group of former employees of Asarco Inc. who were participants in the Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Asarco Inc (“Pension Plan”) and who were laid off.  The Class Action Complaint alleged that Asarco violated ERISA, by failing to pay and/or by delaying payment of Plaintiffs’ “70/80” Pension Benefits, which were unreduced early retirement benefits. 

The ASARCO employees were laid off from ASARCO following a reduction in the work force at Asarco Inc.’s Tucson operations, after about 30 years of service.  The Class Action Complaint demanded that Asarco, Inc. make Plaintiffs and class members whole by paying all 70/80 Benefits owed under the Pension Plan with pre-judgment interest and by paying interest to class members whose 70/80 Benefits were withheld for more than 60 days. 

Martin & Bonnett was able to get the Plaintiffs the benefits they were entitled to from Asarco, Inc.   -- while the class action lawsuit was pending, Asarco Inc. paid the Plaintiffs their pension benefits in full. 

Craven v. BP Retirement Accumulation Plan

Corporate restructuring can shift the burden of paying retiree benefits from company to company, ultimately leaving retirees’ without a company willing to acknowledge responsibility for a pension and often leads to mistakes in calculating pension benefits for employees.

 In 2005, Martin & Bonnett represented a retiree that almost lost his pension benefits due to corporate restructuring, Charlie Craven.  Mr. Craven, a retired mine supervisor, had been receiving a pension for 18 years and was 79 years old when he received a letter from the BP Retirement Accumulation Plan (“BP”) that stated he had received his retirement benefits in error and had accumulated an overpayment of $18,363.44.  After Martin & Bonnett became involved and demanded that Mr. Craven’s benefits be reinstated, Mr. Craven received a letter from BP reinstating his pension benefits.

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES

Martin & Bonnett has represented a wide variety of plaintiffs in cases alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation, including cases against large and small employers, alike.  We have also been class counsel in class action cases alleging discrimination: 

ACLU Sues City of Prescott for Violating Free Speech Rights of Fired Employee

PHOENIX - In a case that will define just how far elected officials can go to silence their critics, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona today filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the City of Prescott Mayor, City Manager and several officials with the Yavapai Humane Society on behalf of an employee of the animal shelter who was fired for her involvement with a group called Prescott Citizens Against Bullies.

"The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution as well as the Arizona Constitution each prohibit city officials and public employers from censoring the speech of employees who speak out on their own time on important community issues," said ACLU of Arizona cooperating attorney Daniel Bonnett, of the Phoenix-based law firm of Martin & Bonnett. "As the lawsuit alleges, we believe this is a clear example of city officials retaliating against an employee for publicly criticizing government policies and practices."

At issue is the unlawful termination of KayAnne Riley, a single mother and former United States Marine, who worked as the marketing director for the city-contracted Yavapai Humane Society from July 2009 to November 2010. During that time, she helped form Prescott Citizens Against Bullies to speak out against what she and others believed were "unfair and unlawful actions" by certain city officials and employees. In particular, Ms. Riley was concerned about what she perceived as the wrongful termination and arrest of another city employee by Prescott Mayor Marlin Kuykendall and other city and police officials.

On November 1, 2010, Riley participated in a peaceful, public demonstration during the lunch hour to protest the unlawful arrest and bullying. The event was covered by the local newspaper, which ran a front page article describing Riley as the "masked leader of the protest rally." The article also mentioned that some of the demonstrators were wearing masks because "everybody's afraid to speak up" in light of past acts by Mayor Kuykendall, including retaliation against individuals who vocalized their opposition to the city's dealings with the Elk's Opera House and Antelope Hills municipal golf course. Two days later, Riley received a notice of reprimand for "insubordination" from the Yavapai Humane Society because of her "personal political activities." Less than two weeks after the demonstration, Riley received a letter of termination stating that her "recent involvement in a public demonstration displayed poor judgment and reflected poorly on the Society."

"The Mayor has brought a culture of fear and intimidation to Prescott, and I am the perfect example of why everyone is afraid to speak out against public misdeeds," said KayAnne Riley, 48, who has a 12-year-old daughter and was a combat correspondent stationed in Tokyo during the Gulf War in the 90s. "Elected officials shouldn't go around using their positions of authority to get people fired. I felt I had an obligation to stand up for what is right and battle injustice. That's one of the reasons I chose to serve in the Marines."

According to the ACLU, board members and staff at the animal shelter made the decision to terminate Riley after Mayor Kuykendall threatened to terminate the contract between the Yavapai Humane Society and the city for Riley's involvement with Prescott Citizens Against Bullies and for her participation in the protest. Riley's boss, Yavapai Humane Society Executive Director Ed Boks, also had previously told her that "he had to take action to appease" Mayor Kuykendall and Yavapai Humane Society board member Marty Goodman. According to the ACLU complaint, Goodman was concerned that Riley's participation in the public protest "was affecting his friendship with the Mayor."

"Mayor Kuykendall and the City of Prescott have a history of retaliating against public employees and other Prescott citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights," added Daniel Pochoda, ACLU of Arizona Legal Director. "KayAnne Riley has paid a dear price to expose government misconduct. Today's lawsuit seeks to hold city officials accountable and avoid a repeat of such abusive and illegal acts in the future."

The ACLU lawsuit argues that city officials violated Riley's First Amendment rights by unlawfully retaliating against her for exercising her rights to freedom of association, speech, and peaceful assembly. In addition to Mayor Kuykendall, and Boks and Goodman of the Yavapai Humane Society, former City Manager Steve Norwood also is a named defendant in the lawsuit.

Riley is represented by the ACLU's Dan Pochoda and Daniel Bonnett, Susan Martin, Jennifer Kroll and Mark A. Bracken, from the Phoenix law firm of Martin & Bonnett.

Race and National Origin Discrimination

Cameron v. Arizona Board Of Regents

Martin & Bonnett filed a Complaint against the Arizona Board of Regents (“ABOR”) on behalf of Theresa Cameron, an African-American former professor of Arizona State University (“ASU”), and other former minority professors.  Cameron was the first African-American woman to be awarded tenure in ASU’s College of Design’s School of Planning.  However, after being diagnosed with a medical disability, Cameron began experiencing some hostility from Defendant ASU employees.  The Defendant ASU employees set in motion a series of events intended to discredit Dr. Cameron and orchestrate her dismissal.  After months of unsuccessfully requesting disability accommodations, Cameron was removed from her position at ASU.  ASU alleged Cameron’s dismissal was for “just cause” due to the fact that she had plagiarized a syllabus and engaged in retaliatory conduct against two students.  The Complaint alleged ABOR has discriminated against Plaintiff by ignoring and refusing to implement any of her ongoing requests for reasonable accommodations for her disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.  The Complaint also alleged that ABOR was denying Plaintiff’s due process and equal protection rights by failing to hold any grievance hearing, by failing to hold the dismissal hearing within the required time limits, and terminating Plaintiff while retaining as a tenured professor, a similarly situated Caucasian male who had been accused of plagiarism.  ABOR has discriminated against Cameron and denied her due process and equal protection under the law because Defendants have treated Plaintiff disparately because of her race. 

This racial discrimination lawsuit seeks immediate reinstatement for Cameron, an award of damages against Defendants for the violations alleged herein, including, but not limited to, compensation for lost and future wages and benefits including pre and post-judgment interest, compensatory damages, and mental anguish and emotional distress damages.

Puente v. State of Arizona (Arizona Department of Transportation)
Martin & Bonnett filed a Class Action Complaint against the Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”), on behalf of Hispanic employees.  The Class Action Complaint alleged that minority employees of ADOT have been subjected to a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination based on their race or national origin.  The case resulted in a Consent Decree with the state and judgments for some individual employees who had been the victims of discrimination.

Noriega v. City of Scottsdale
Martin & Bonnett filed a complaint alleging discrimination against a group of ten Hispanic employees by the City of Scottsdale.  Martin & Bonnett was successful in obtaining one of the largest settlements against the City of Scottsdale for the discrimination and retaliation that took place.

Gender Discrimination

Gender Discrimination and FMLA Suit Against Large Computer Corporation
Martin & Bonnet filed a Complaint against a large national computer corporation on behalf of a female former regional sales manager.  The Complaint alleged that the computer company discriminated against the employee on the basis of sex, in violation of Title VII, by failing and refusing to use the same method or criteria as was used for calculating bonuses owed male employees under similar bonus plans and paying Plaintiff less than the full amount owed her while paying in full bonuses owed to male employees similarly situated to Plaintiff.  

Plaintiff  claimed that the computer corporation engaged in an unlawful employment practices prohibited by Title VII by retaliating against Plaintiff by failing to hold Plaintiff’s position of Regional Manager open during an approved leave of absence.  The Complaint also alleged that Compuware violated the Family Medical Leave Act.

The case resulted in a favorable settlement for the employee.

Pregnancy Discrimination

Pregnancy Discrimination Against Real Estate Management Company
Martin & Bonnett filed a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against a multi-state real estate management company on behalf of a former bookkeeper.  The Complaint alleged that the bookkeeper was unlawfully terminated from her employment and discriminated against because of her sex, which was in violation of Title VII.  Once the bookkeeper notified the company  of her pregnancy, the company made it clear that they do not have a maternity leave policy and that her employment would be terminated.  Although the company did approve a request for vacation time that the employee intended to take around the time of her due date, the company still terminated the employee before her vacation time had even ended.  This pregnancy discrimination case resulted in a favorable settlement for the employee.

Pregnancy Discrimination Against Financial Services Company
Martin & Bonnett filed a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against a national financial services employee on behalf of a former sales manager.  The Complaint alleged that the manager was denied opportunities and demoted because the company unlawfully determined that she could not perform her job while pregnant.  This pregnancy discrimination case resulted in a favorable settlement for the employee.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CASES

Gribben v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Martin & Bonnett has successfully sued employers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  One such case was on behalf of Charles W. Gribben against the United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), for employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA.  Gribben was employed by UPS for about 18 years before he was diagnosed with a medical condition due to heart failure.  Following his disability leave, Gribben requested reasonable accommodations including use of an air-conditioned truck and time limitations on lifting responsibilities, which were recommended by his physician.  UPS did not accommodate Gribben’s disability rather, UPS retaliated against Gribben by placing him on an unpaid sick leave which ultimately resulted in his termination. 

The District Court granted in part UPS’s Motion for Summary Judgment and upheld a jury verdict in favor of UPS.  Gribben appealed that decision in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the District Court erred in determining at summary judgment that Gribben was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

DISABILITY AND HEALTH BENEFITS CASES

Gould v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
Martin & Bonnett filed a Class Action Complaint against Loral Corporation, predecessor of Lockheed Martin Corporation, on behalf of employees and former employees.  The Class Action Complaint alleged that the Lockheed Martin Corporation breached various statutory and common law duties to the Settlement Class Members by making modifications to the Settlement Class Members’ Retiree Medical Benefits. The case resulted in a settlement for future and past Medicare reimbursement for class members, as well as continued medical coverage for the class of retirees and their dependents.

Martin & Bonnett brought successful claims for disability and health benefits against a wide variety of employers and insurance companies.  Martin & Bonnett handles claims and appeals to the insurance companies and to the employers and in litigation.